On 4/28/04 4:01 PM, "Emilie Quast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that really bothered him was that no one seemed to really *know* > what was going to happen in the fragile limestone bluffs, but if the thing > goes through, it's going to be happening for 50 years on the lease with a > renewable 50 more on extension. I think this point that Emilie's friend makes is a crucial one. There seem to be a lot of questions surrounding this Crown Hydro project that nobody has provided definite answers to. Some of them may be simply NIMBYism, but some of them also appear to be legitimate concerns. I was kind of struck by Barb Lickness asking yesterday about whether there were reports available that would back up some of the concerns that have been raised about risks associated with this project. I don't mean to pick on Barb, but why should the folks living near Mill Ruins have to provide or cite reports regarding risks? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the proponents of this project to demonstrate that there are no or minimal risks and to assuage concerns associated with this project? After all, it's the Crown Hydro folks that primarily stand to gain if this project happens, so I would think any burden of proof should fall on them, not city residents or park visitors. I'm reminded of a presentation I attended a couple months ago where manufacturers of lead fishing sinkers and jigs were trying to defend their continued use of a highly toxic metal when there are a number of nontoxic alternatives. One question came up about the common practice of biting a split shot weight to close it around the line and whether that was a good idea if it was made out of lead. The industry consultant defended the practice as safe because "there was no research that suggested it was a problem." That reasoning seemed kind of silly to me, so I raised my hand and asked this fellow if he agreed that lead is toxic and he said yes. So then I asked him why he needed a report to tell him that putting a toxic substance in his mouth probably wasn't a good idea - wasn't that simply common sense? Not surprisingly, he couldn't really answer my question. Here's another way of looking at it: how often in this forum have we read about some repeat offender in one of our neighborhoods is found guilty and scheduled for sentencing, that a bunch of folks in that neighborhood have to write victim impact statements in order to help make sure a judge actually puts that person away? Once the burden of proof for guilt has been met by the prosecution, shouldn't it be a given that the person should be put away unless there are some mitigating circumstances that would suggest a different approach? And then shouldn't the responsibility for presenting any such circumstances be placed upon the guilty party rather than what we have now where folks are basically begging judges to actually lock someone up? In the environmental field, this concept is known as the precautionary principle. It basically means "better safe than sorry" and calls for manufacturers to demonstrate that a new product or process is safe rather than place the burden on the public to prove that it's not safe. Unfortunately, this concept is not the status quo in the United States, but the movement to make it so is growing and people can learn more about efforts to promote this concept at http://www.besafenet.com/ This approach has found greater acceptance among entities like the Food and Drug Administration, where it is used to increase the likelihood that new pharmaceuticals introduced to the marketplace will actually do what they're supposed to do and won't have nasty side effects. The downside is that new drugs take longer to gain approval, but the upside is that you can be reasonably confident that the new prescription your doctor writes for you isn't going to end up killing you - at least as long as you don't have to look at the bill. Think about some of the local problems that likely could have been avoided if the precautionary principle were in place: the Arsenic Triangle in Phillips, the asbestos-contaminated soil in Gluek Park, the trichloroethylene-contaminated ground water in Arden Hills under TCAAP, the numerous older houses containing lead-based paint, etc., etc., etc. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
